Any ethnically Jewish mamas who found Christ? - Page 3

[tikva18]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

Now I'm interested. B/c the original Hebrew is not "I am". It is 'ehiyeh asher ehiyeh' - 'I will be what I will be'. So wondering if the "I am" part is mistranslated from the Greek of the NT or if it is refering to something else.

FWIW - religious studies is the debate forum, spirtuality is the support forum.

It would not be too surprising to have a few mistranslations here or there as there was a text which was widely used to translate from the Hebrew into Greek. The downfall in this was that the translators did not go back to the original Hebrew when they then proceeded to translate into Latin. Again, the translation went on going from Latin to French; from French to German, and lastly German to English. To my great dismay, I cannot recall the name of this fantastic text which has the translations laid out side by side. To get the most accurate translation one should return to the original language. I know that many Christians rely on the Septuagint, but again I feel that the best means of understanding should be gained from reading the original.

[SaraFR]

Originally Posted by tikva18

It would not be too surprising to have a few mistranslations here or there as there was a text which was widely used to translate from the Hebrew into Greek. The downfall in this was that the translators did not go back to the original Hebrew when they then proceeded to translate into Latin. Again, the translation went on going from Latin to French; from French to German, and lastly German to English. To my great dismay, I cannot recall the name of this fantastic text which has the translations laid out side by side. To get the most accurate translation one should return to the original language. I know that many Christians rely on the Septuagint, but again I feel that the best means of understanding should be gained from reading the original.

If I remember correctly, there are actually christians who wanted to learn Hebrew as they were aware of th confusion caused by the [mis]translations.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by tikva18

The downfall in this was that the translators did not go back to the original Hebrew when they then proceeded to translate into Latin. Again, the translation went on going from Latin to French; from French to German, and lastly German to English.

Heh? Which translation was this? I have never heard of this before.
[ETA: OK, I did some more mouse hunting and found that there are several Old English, Middle English translations that were based in the Vulgate. Although, these are obviously not translations relied upon by Modern Christians, nor were they ever in great circulation. For the most part, these translations would not be readable, or at least not easily understandable, to modern English speakers.
I still can't find anything though about translating to French or German and then into English though.]

I understand that reading the original Hebrew is the number one option. But, I know that in my Bible (New International Version) the text is translated directly from the Hebrew. (The NT is translated directly from Aramaic & Greek) There is no intermediary Latin, French, German, etc.
The primary source text is the Masoretic Text "as published in the latest editions of the Biblia Hebraicia " My understanding is that this text is the Tenach accepted by Judaism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic


There were a number of other sources consulted such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.
Most Christian Bibles have a long introduction explaining which sources were used and who did the translating. Even the King James Version of 1611, used the Masoretic text and did not rely upon translating from the Latin (Vulgate) And certainly it didn't go into French or German first.

[christianmomof3]

I don't understand this at all. If you feel no spiritual connection in Judaism, why wouldn't you seek out different Jews before looking to another religion entirely? Is it just easier to relate to a person than to God directly? If you want to relate to a person, why a person who chooses to call themselves God-or-something-like-him, why not Muhammed, or someone else?

Actually, I did nto seek out anyone. I read some New Age books when I was in college and it sounded interesting, but somehow wrong to me.
The Lord called me and drew me to Himself in love.
I became a born-again Christian because Jesus is God and He revealed Himself to me as such and He lives in me as my life and my life supply and my everything. As a born-again Christian, I can now relate to God directly.
Also, I am interested in the whole "I Am" verse because in my
Jewish Bible it is also translated as I Am in English.

[tikva18]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

Heh? Which translation was this? I have never heard of this before.
[ETA: OK, I did some more mouse hunting and found that there are several Old English, Middle English translations that were based in the Vulgate. Although, these are obviously not translations relied upon by Modern Christians, nor were they ever in great circulation. For the most part, these translations would not be readable, or at least not easily understandable, to modern English speakers.
I still can't find anything though about translating to French or German and then into English though.]

I understand that reading the original Hebrew is the number one option. But, I know that in my Bible (New International Version) the text is translated directly from the Hebrew. (The NT is translated directly from Aramaic & Greek) There is no intermediary Latin, French, German, etc.
The primary source text is the Masoretic Text "as published in the latest editions of the Biblia Hebraicia " My understanding is that this text is the Tenach accepted by Judaism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic


There were a number of other sources consulted such as the Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.
Most Christian Bibles have a long introduction explaining which sources were used and who did the translating. Even the King James Version of 1611, used the Masoretic text and did not rely upon translating from the Latin (Vulgate) And certainly it didn't go into French or German first.

I'm sorry that I can't recall the name of this - my religion professor in college and I used to spend a lot of time together and he showed me many, many things - he specialized in biblical languages and was absolutely brilliant.

[crazy_eights]

She is correct - the King James version was based on the translation of a Jew who converted to Christianity. However, that does not mean that 'accepted' errors (such as Isaiah's 'virgin' or psalms 'kari' which does not mean pierced, but 'like a lion') were not repeted in the text. The world in which the King James version of the bible was produced was not the world of today. To change something so accepted and relied upon as a proof text would have been considered an act of heresy. We also do not know who produced the English prose and various theories abound, including that it was Shakespeare who wrote it.

[crazy_eights]

*posted to wrong thread! :